… The ruling released Friday allows Leach to try to prove that the university’s reasons for firing him were false, but without monetary relief.

Yeah, that’s so gonna happen.

All of which leads me back to the question I had when the suit first came to my attention: if Texas law holds that a state university can’t be sued for damages for breach of contract, how does a football coach protect himself against a school which reneges on a promise to pay?

Related

11 responses to “Mike Leach gets sacked on appeal.”

I haven’t read the actual opinion/ruling, but what is the remedy for when a Texas University breaches a contract? (And why would anyone contract with a Texas University for anything if there is no monetary remedy for breach?)

Specific performance with Leach reinstated would be my vote for remedy.

The courts got this one right. Again. TT had every right to fire Leach whether he agrees with it or not. If Mr Leach wants to coach again he better swallow this verdict and move on. As we’ve seen the last few years, no Univ AD is taking a chance on this loose cannon with law degree (excuse the redundancy).

The way I read it, the appeals court did not rule that TT was correct in their decision to fire Leach. The court just ruled that it is not possible for Leach to bring a lawsuit against a state institution.

This is a clear ticket to the Supreme Court of Texas on the governmental immunity issue. If you cannot sue to enforce a contract with a state university in Texas how can any vendor protect himself if the college doesn’t pay? Food suppliers, book sellers everybody is at risk.

I don’t think anyone questions TT’s right to fire Leach, every employer has that authority. The question is can they ignore the contractual language that detailed the terms for which he could work, be terminated, or compensated. TT has no right to walk away from their obligations, and it doesn’t matter if they are a state protected institution or not.

TT gave up their “unlimited immunity” by entering into the contract, and that will apply to other contractural relationships they have. It would be a very slippery slope if contracts only apply one way, that would be chaotic. A court may find Leach violated the terms and is not entitled to compensation, but they cannot say TT has authority to breaks legal agreements. TT should just pay the terms of the contract and hope Leach doesn’t pursue the civil case for defamation of chaaracter. I think CML has a strong case on both issues. I also feel TT took the action recklessly without thinking to avoid paying the bonus Leach was entitled to. There is no other excuse for acting that stupidly and exposing themselves.

I’m sure somebody will figure it out. Maybe have the employer waive immunity in the contract?

BTW, the whole idea that a university is acting as a public entity when running its football program is laughable. These athletic departments are businesses, and big ones at that. But I still like the tax deduction for donations, so I’ll shut up.

Correct me if I’m wrong but leach should be entitled the the value of the contract with respect to breach. Meaning if there is a provision that says leach gets X If TT breaches the contract then he should get that, assuming there is a breach. The issue seems to be whether leach can sue for money for defamation or some other such damage claim against a state entity. These public immunity claims are not unusual. For example generally you can’t sue a police officer for an assault because of immunity. You have to use the civil rights act.

Quote Of The Day

“It's definitely different not knowing exactly who it's gonna be, but in a way, I feel like that's good,” he said. “One of my old coaches from Valdosta told me that competition is one of the best coaches. And I feel like, as well as each one of those three guys is performing, they're not gonna do anything but make each other better.” -- Jay Rome, The Red & Black, 3/25/15